1997 (3) TMI 178 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Misuse of concession under Rule 173C(11) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944
- Authority to grant and withdraw permission under Rule 173C(11)
- Application of the proviso in case of discrepancy in declared price

Analysis:
The case involves an appellant engaged in the manufacture of Calcium Carbide under sub-heading 2806.20 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellant obtained permission under Rule 173C(11) of the Central Excise Rules to dispense with filing price lists and determine duty based on sales invoices. However, a notice was issued stating that the concession was misused by raising debit notes without paying proper duty. The Assistant Collector confirmed the proposal to withdraw the permission, which was upheld by the Collector (Appeals), leading to the present appeal.

Rule 173C mandates filing price lists for ad valorem assessment of goods and sets restrictions on goods removal. Sub-rule (11) allows the Collector to permit declaring prices on documents for duty calculation based on market fluctuations. The Collector has the authority to grant and withdraw such permission, especially in cases of abuse detrimental to revenue interests. The proviso empowers the officer to reassess duty if declared price differs from the value under the Central Excise Act.

In this case, the orders did not clearly specify the discrepancy or extent of misuse. The appeal mentioned sales to independent buyers without discrepancies. As no grounds were established for revocation despite the duty shortfall, the Tribunal set aside the orders, allowing the appeal without prejudice to the Revenue's right to recover any outstanding duty.

Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that while the permission could be withdrawn in cases of gross abuse affecting revenue, the lack of clarity on discrepancies in this case led to the reversal of the withdrawal decision, emphasizing the importance of following due process and establishing clear grounds for revocation.